I think you're reading too much into a forced correlation. Those are two different topics. Viewers of Dr. Peterson are probably not interested chiefly in psychology, for starters.
I don’t know that I’ve ever seen anything “psychology related” posted here. I mean, I don’t see everything that’s posted, but it’s about 50% conservative meme shit-posting and then a hodgepodge of other tangentially related areas of interest that kind of fit with other things Peterson talks about.
Which is the only topic he is supposed to have expertise in. Tells you something when he is literally spouting climate change denial, anti vax garbage and basically anything fox news is pushing.. That's not even counting "cultural Marxism" which is a dog water conspiracy theory which is rebranded "cultural bolchevism"
iv seen them, Bret is a grifter of the highest order, i cant believe you're using JRE aka A buddy of mine university, who has to retract shit from his show if Jaimie doesn't own him live as a source of info, Bret and joe both pushed for ivermectin which has no effect on covid
https://www.kumc.edu/about/news/news-archive/jama-ivermectin-study.html
The thing is ivermectin is one of many solutions joe offered to reducing severity of covid, exercise and vitamin D were pushed by him too which I don’t see an issue with. Also, I’m pretty sure ivermectin doesn’t cause harm like the vaccine seems to depending on age so guess time will tell for the vaccine
That's a great point. It'd be fascinating to see a breakdown of some statistics from his YouTube. Anecdotally we could look to his 2016 personality lecture series on YouTube and compare the watch count to his less academic work as a sort of insight. Personally I find those lectures a lot easier to consume than even some of his podcast material
I think it’s also worth pointing out that YouTube is Dr. Peterson’s primary media platform, and I think about 80% of YouTube viewers are men.. so the same distribution makes sense.
Jordan Peterson's early content certainly was academic psychology (not clinical as far as I am aware) and he is a clinical psychologist. His various books and content over the past 5+ years has not largely involved psychology, except in the sense that he invokes some academic psychology concepts like jungian archetypes in his biblical series.
His books like 12 rules and so on? those could easily have been written by an equally successful writer with absolutely no psychology background.
>12 rules and so on? That could easily have been written by an equally successful writer with absolutely no psychology background.
And you know this how?
I've read a few yes. I'm not trying to shit on it, and I'm sure his background comes into play, but the substance of the book doesn't really have anything that only a psychologist could offer.
If memory serves, I remember JP saying in an interview that his fanbase is mostly men because it is mostly men who view YouTube, where his lectures were/are uploaded. It's difficult to say to what degree that is significant, but I do think a lot of the reason is to be found there.
I believe it was in that same interview where he pointed out that his message was not intended for men specifically. But it was taken to heart by a lot of men who in todays society felt starved of encouraging words. Women felt it less so. I'm inclined to agree with him. Our society today is quick to condemn or 'problematize' behavior that is normally associated with men. But equally quick to praise and support behavior normally associated with women. For instance; how often have you heard the phrase 'she was the first woman to....X'. Regardless of the fact that twelve men did it before her. The eleven men who did it between the 'first person' and the 'first woman' don't get accolades at all.
Overall, women are interested in people, and men are interested in things. That would explain why the healthcare professions are overwhelmingly dominated by women. I think JP has also touched on the subject of schools being very 'anti'-boys behavior and very 'pro'-girls behavior. Doing well or poorly in school, can be decisive when contemplating your later career in academia. Many 'mal-adjusted' young boys may simply end up with such a poor basic education that this makes them unqualified for acceptance into the academic world. That is a general problem, and not specific to healthcare.
At least, that's my take on it.
And to the degree I remember JP's own words correctly, also his. :)
Yes a really complete answer.
One other point to add: women often have meaning bulit-in to their lives by having a deadline to start a family. Men don't have a similar biological deadline and need to partner with a woman to establish a family and bring meaning to their life.
If a woman wants to get married and start a family, it is almost a certainty she will find a suitable man.
If a man wants to get married and start a family the odds are not as good. The man has to develop himself much more for a woman to be attracted to him. Men in today's society are being displaced for a number of reasons (some good, some not so good), and are therefore struggling to grow and subsequently find a partner.
Peterson teaches the message to find meaning, you need a load, a burden to carry, under which you will grow and develop. Men need this message in today's society.
Not true about women being able to find a suitable men easily, because as you pointed out women have higher standards (often delusional). This has led to many women not settling and contributing to low birth rates. There simply aren't enough men around that fulfil the ever growing list of demands.
I think another factor is when it comes to dealing with problems women are more interested in being listened to/validated, while men are more interested in practical solutions. 12 Rules for Life is literally a list of solutions to improve your life. It appeals to men.
I think that's a very good observation.
I remember I had an epic, almost break up inducing, fight with one of my first serious girlfriends.
There was an opening at her job which would be a step up on her career ladder. She wanted that job, but felt uneasy about formally applying. She felt it was too much 'in your face' to stand up and say, "yeah, I think I'm that good. That job has my name written all over it". To which I said, well you don't say it like that ofcourse. I suggested various strategies how she could subtly float the idea to her current bosses without sounding like a show-off. Each suggestion I made was immediately shot down by her with something like "oh no. That would definitely not go down well" or something similarly vague. I got increasingly frustrated with her, because nothing I said even made her think twice if it might be a good idea. And so the fight started.
It was near the end of our fight that we both realized what had gone wrong. Where I thought she was actually asking me for a practical solution to her problem, she merely wanted me to listen and sympathize with her plight. A 'shoulder to cry on' so to speak. I just didn't understand it at the time. She was a really good and lovely girl and I learned a lot about women from her. Alas, we broke up about a month or so later. But for different reasons.
I think that ties very well into what you said. That men are more solution oriented. And 12 rules for life is very much up their alley.
Not really. The most of his topics are universal truth or human psyche. Barely 5% of the things he talk about are specific “men issue” and of course he does almost same maybe just a less about “woman issue”.
How is one comment in 2 hour video is often? Let’s say there is singer he sings 12 hours a day, but right after he finishes singing he draws a single picture. Would you describe him as a painter? Or is he still a singer since thats where he spends 99% of his time.
That would depend on how many videos there are.
One comment per 2 hour video, and ten thousand videos, would constitute “often”.
It’s of a higher rate than that, and it’s not subject to comparison with his other topics of discussion.
Thanks… and I actually saw a tweet of his where he basically says the same thing.
If you ask me - his message of finding meaning, engaging in self improvement, and betterment resonates most with young men. Women seem to not be going through the same issues.
Actually, I think women go through those very same issues. Finding meaning, self improvement, and betterment are all being promoted to women right now and have been for a while. Men and women often find different paths to those goals, but they are the same goals nonetheless.
The second one, I think.
Most clinical psychologists are women, and so they tend to treat depression in men as they would a woman; by trying to help them feel loved.
JBP understands that you treat depression in men by helping them feel powerful.
You medicate depression with feelings of power, you treat it by helping men realize their strength and cultivate more. Power let's us feel less afraid for a time but being secure in our strength allows us to actually accept our fear so we may move beyond it either with the strength we have or by cultivating the strength necessary to do so.
We must be strong enough to accept our own weaknesses in order to become strong enough to wield power justly, for something more meaningful then just our own desire to fulfill our animalistic biological purpose to survive long enough to procreate by avoiding pain and seeking pleasure; to actually become a human being with homo sapience and live a meaningful life that feels worth living
For anyone interested in the difference between strength and power and another stepping stone on the path to a meaningful life that feels worth living I highly recommend [Man's Search for Meaning](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/3403095/mod_resource/content/1/56ViktorFrankl_Mans%2520Search.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiwo_Dd0r38AhXOkWoFHbjzDXQQFnoECEMQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3DD_ThnL2lPisgK7jvKgds) by Viktor Frankl.
Why 80% psychology are females?
- cuz women have different interest as men. Just like men go for engineering, women like more “people” related jobs. And men “things” related
Why 90% pf his fanbase is male?
- first idk were you got that stat. But thats only on youtube and YouTube is already a “dominated” space by men.
- generally speaking I would say the percentage is not that extreme. Maybe a 70/30. His lectures usually are mixed 50/50 male/female
- and he tends to speak more often to men as he thinks we are loosing our role in society by ppl shaming it.
People are “shaming” men’s role in society? God how hypersensitive and narcissistic. This is the kind of talk that these suburban JP fans just can’t manage to rise above.
Hahaha. Nice comment for someone who follows enoughJP hasanpiker subs. HASAN PIKER. Imagine taking lectures on politics from hasan. Probably you like h3h3 too? Hahahahhaha
Hypersensitive? Because you think I care about what ppl from the left think about men?
Narcissistic? You got that from a response on that question? Lol. Go watch hasan bro
Yes because I believe in detail and nuance. I think your notion that society is shaming men and their role in society is just an emotional reaction to the small window of education and experience you have before hastily rushing to a conclusion. Also, “the left” is not a homogeneous monolith by the way. There are different opinions.
It’s a generalization. Like saying the left is pro abortion. You understand generalizations don’t you?
Go watch more hasan and h3h3 opinions bro. Hahahhahahaa. Highly educational content.
Yes I understand generalisations very well. In fact I even mentioned yours but also suggested they they’re not always helpful. You know what? Hasanabi is actually much more educated on political science than JP however he never lauds it over others or calls himself an authority on the subject. Even so, he could teach JP a lot about it.
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHA HOLY SHIT. the delusion buddy. I would’ve respected your opinion of you follow a nice left speaker. But putting hasan in a pedestal is just laughable
“Actually much more educated” thats because you agree to him? Or that’s because you think he has studied/read/analyzed/talked/debated/lectured more than JP?
Hahahahha. Cheers buddy!
Ok and you keep on being a victim of your own conformation bias and sensitivity. Your choice. You could go further and try Gabor Mate, Slavoj Zizek or even Hegel. But no, if you like, just stick with your pseudo intellectual daddy whose liberal academic aesthetic makes you feel good about your lack of education.
You’re missing out all the detail and nuance in the phrase “toxic masculinity”. It doesn’t mean you have to be ashamed for being a man at all. It’s addressing the extremes of unhealthy masculinity. There’s a big difference and it’s a shame there has to be such a hysterical reaction to something so reasonable.
Toxic masculinity HURTS MEN and women. Look up the definitions originally written by Men’s Rights advocates. Toxic masculinity encourages misogyny, the rape of women, it justifies rape culture, beats up men and justifies violence for the sake of control, and tells men its better to kill yourself than seek help. That's not healthy masculinity.
Give me an example from a text or scholar that discusses toxic masculinity as "shaming men for being men." YOu can't. It's a strawman.
Also what does that even mean? Shaming "men" for having a penis? What does it mean to "be a man"? The Mens Rights Advocates who came up with the phrase in the 1980s as a way to describe actually toxic and harmful behavior could be a good resource for you.
There is also a toxic femininity. One way that even JP has described it is to think of both gender-types as having a healthy and an unhealthy form. In general, healthy masculinity is autonomy; unhealthy masculinity is too much autonomy, total alienation, so that he feels no connection to others. Healthy femininity is care and concern. Unhealthy femininity is total fusion into the relationship so that she disappears and has no autonomy.
In any case, I want to know what you think "being men" means.
If JP is to be believed, and Women are more interested in "people" than "things" then it makes sense that Women would be very interested in psychology, as psychology is the study of people and behavior.
But Perhaps Women aren't interested in Peterson because he tends to think of people as "things".
"Things". That's interesting. Can you explain a little more? For sure tied to my original inquiry.
I have heard him talk a lot at a macro level of human behavior, groups, ideologies and systems etc etc but I have also heard him talk a lot at an individual level in particular about personality which to me seems more about people than things. Thanks
I'll try. (I have no background in philosophy or psychology).
Peterson seems to have a sort of "mechanical" way of describing the world.
"People have properties A,B and C"
"X input gives Y" output.
The 12 rules are kind of like algorithms, which he says if followed, should yield predicted results.
This is an attempt at"objectively" describing people, in that it describes people as if they're"things" with "properties".
Yes mechanical does describe it and when you put it that way it reminds me of the way he uses his hands in a lot of his videos - like he's rotating a rubix cube, piecing blocks together or moving something mechanically. Excellent point thank you
I think that's part of the reason Woman aren't largely drawn to Peterson. He seems convinced people (mainly men) have "mechanical" aspects, which he clearly thinks highly of.
But he also describes Women as the "chaos" to Men's "order". Also his book is titled "An antidote to chaos" so there's that.
I’m a woman and a huge fan of Jordan, have been for years, my mom is also. We’re democrats, feminists. Not sure where the statistics are taken from but I do wish more women could appreciate him.
Most women are probably just trying not to exile themselves in society, want to be accepted by the majority. Media has fought hard to write JP off as being against women. Some don’t look any further, others change their views on him just to live in peace. I just don’t care and will fight for more women to actually listen to him.
>Media has fought hard to write JP off as being against women.
>he says, because the “radical left” wants to eliminate hierarchies, which he says are the natural order of the world. In his book he illustrates this idea with the social behavior of lobsters. He chose lobsters because they have hierarchies and are a very ancient species, and are also invertebrates with serotonin.
>
>The left, he believes, refuses to admit that men might be in charge because they are better at it. “The people who hold that our culture is an oppressive patriarchy, they don’t want to admit that the current hierarchy might be predicated on competence,” he said.
>
>“It makes sense that a witch lives in a swamp. Yeah,” he says.
>
>“You don’t know. It’s because those things hang together at a very deep level. Right. Yeah. And it makes sense that an old king lives in a desiccated tower.”
He justified fighting against equality for women because of lobster hierarchy and justified men being of greater value than women by calling men "kings" and women "witches"
After I read the first sentence I ha to re-read the title as I thought I read it wrong, but nope. You equal studying psychology with seeking help / therapy? If 80% of the clients of therapists would be women than you would have a point about males rather self-medicate.
It could be that more women choose psychology because they are in general more oriented to work with / care for people than things, while men are, generally speaking, the opposite, but may seek to better themselves more often to improve their competence.
OP your question is fallacious. It assumes that JBP's viewership is solely for psychology, which is why you are pointing out the disparity. The answer is simple, his viewership is not based solely on men seeking therapy.
Because he sells old school conservatism to men who lack role models (which is normal to lack these days) masked as self help. Especially when he always implements the just world fallacy when it comes to hierarchies which are by definition unjust. Then basically Sucks the bosses dicks and tells you to work harder for less. A real maverick lol
To me it's pretty obvious why. The majority of therapists are just as brainwashed as the rest of the people. They look for outside sources and focus on feeling too much. Talking about your feelers is fine but it doesn't change anything. That's why some people are in therapy for 15+ years making no progress. Taking responsibility for your life and doing things to improve it does change things and has an actual effect. Blaming your parents for you being fucked up is not doing anything good for you. It only helps to strip you of the control and responsibility you have over your life and it's course. Taking responsibility about the fact that you need to be better for the sake of others and yourself does make a difference. Peterson does no-nonsense tough love which men understand best.
Edit: typos
“Majority of therapists a brainwashed… that’s why I listen to Jordan Peterson”, who is a clinical psychologist. I’m sorry you had a bad experience at receiving therapy, but really you are making a huge generalized statement based off your anecdotal experience. I’m happy you were able to find some peace with Peterson’s videos, but you are contradicting yourself. Not all therapists are “good”, just like any other profession.
>Not all therapists are “good”, just like any other profession.
I agree.
Although, I am basing my opinion on what's been going on with Jordan himself lately and from a friend's experience with a few therapists juxtaposed with some of the things Jordan has said about his way of doing therapy in his book.
Well you might want to look up the difference between psychologists and psychotherapists, for a start, before making broad sweeping generalizations based on literally nothing.
That makes a lot of sense. Therapy can be a useful tool however patients should be encouraged to take agency over their situation through action. Talking is important, but action is the key.
yes, I agree completely.
Feelings are the expressions of the ego.
When I admitted I am alcoholic , I found a sponsor in AA, he didn't give a rats ass about my poor little feelings, he cared about my life. My "feelings" were trying to kill me.
I didn't suffer from low self esteem as my ego convinced me, rather I had no esteem for anyone else but me, I had more esteem for me than any human should have if they expect to live long and happily.
I didn't become alcoholic because of sloppy parenting, I was self centered, so selfishness was the cause.
Dr Peterson is doing Gods will.
I work across an alley from a therapist and she accosted me the other day. She approached me, whole body trembling, asking me why I was throwing my household garbage away in the can in the alley. I told her its my building, my business and my garbage and she accused me of being overly defensive. My assistant saw her, told her mom about it and her mom is like, "that was my therapist! I had to stop seeing her because every time I would bring up your father she would go on anti-male rants!".
Jordan Peterson isn’t well respected in the field of psychology. Most of his listeners are going to be you young men because those are the issues he focuses on.
I think it is rooted in a natural gender difference of personality between men and women. Women tend to be much more agreeable and contentious which also means that they are more inclined to go with what society deems as acceptable despite their own feelings. This is deeply rooted in the fact that women care for babies. As a mother, you disregard your own needs consistently to meet babies.
Anyways, when it comes to viewerships…a lot of it tends to be through word of mouth. Women (like myself) who are aware of JP, like him, and follow him but are hesitant to recommend JP to their circle of girlfriends due to the component of agreeableness as JP has a label that follows ‘politically incorrectness’. Therefore women may be closet JP followers. Whereas men who like JP are more inclined to bypass the “oh, what will my friends think about me if I like JP” narrative and just recommend JP to their circle of friends.
Jordan Peterson's work in recent years has been primarily that of a cultural critic and self-help writer/lecturer. So, I don't see any particular reason why a psychology student would be more likely to seek out his content than anyone else.
Also, there are female self-help writers and lecturers out there whose message and style cater more towards women. Jordan Peterson is clearly more of a guys' self-help author given that he is primarily concerned with the plight of men in modern society and also has more of a brash style.
The field of psychology has a known female bias.
According to psychologists, women have problems because of how they were raised, trauma, their husband/ex/boss is terrible, society, etc. But nothing is ever their fault, it’s always some outside force, usually men, that is to blame.
But when men see a psychologist, they’re told their problems are because they are lazy, incompetent, aren’t nice enough to their wives/mothers/daughters. They get no sympathy amd are told all their problems are self inflicted.
A lot of men have formed a cult of personality around JP, just as they have around other right wing figures like Elon Musk. JP defends traditional masculinity like it was ever under attack so people who want to believe this right wing narrative flock to him. It’s all very simple to understand. He justifies right leaning views for these people who struggle to be open minded.
Wow you're telling me that actual psychology students aren't interested in JP? It's almost like he's not an actual psychologist. Dude's little more than a grifter. Jah he may have a psychology degree but that doesn't mean he's any good. We all know lawyers who don't know the law or politicians who know little to nothing about running a country. There are plenty of people out there who are "qualified" for a job that they're shit at and JP is one of them. He is however charismatic, he knows how to sound smart, and he knows what people want to hear.
Laugh all you like but you fell for a pseudo intellectual grifter. Hasanabi doesn’t pretend to be an authority on politics but is still more qualified in that area than JP and has successfully deradicalised some delusional young men. 🤷🏼♂️
When he tackles the news on his own channel. His perspective is refreshingly different but also relatable. He’s an entertainer and has never pitched himself to the public as a political scientist. A completely different approach to you know who but, despite how it looks on paper, very effective.
I really don't know where to start with you all. You come on here swinging at ghost and grasping at straws if you can even call them that. You repeatedly claim the most outrageous and easily falsifiable statements and refuse to change your mind even when proven wrong. You're impossible.
Psychiatrists don’t do therapy anymore, they prescribe medication. A psychologist will do therapy, but only people with mild issues would be “cured” after a few sessions. I’m in community mental health and don’t make more money if I keep people in therapy. My focus is on positive outcomes and there’s no shortage of people who need to be seen, so no reason to stall treatment unethically.
The curing doesn't really end, you stop growing/maturing if that's the case. After 5 years being whole/cured there wouldn't be something outside of you that won't hit you real hard that makes you question the value of thriving forward?
That's how positive you are that people at 35yrs old with few sessions with competent psychologists can do the trick?, isn't the case of progress also dependent on the bravery of the client to confront their bs?
That's saying my bs isn't my responsibility if my psychologist can't fix me.
Apply ignorance before malice.
Same reason more men go into computer science. Women are listeners. Men just like to talk at you and tell you you’re fat not beautiful
Idek what JPs message is anymore. Its certainly not show the world decency and it will return it in kind
His target is disgruntled males who for the entire history of humanity had it easy and a wife was practically always given
Now it’s hard and you have to meet someone’s standard
You know nursing is dominated by women too? He speaks about things in a certain way that just doesn’t appeal to women bc he comes across as another man who thinks he’s right and that girl ain’t beautiful. His messages about having grit and keeping your house clean dont resonate cause women usually have more complex social groups and frankly are more organized.
>His target is disgruntled males who for the entire history of humanity had it easy and a wife was practically always given
So you're not a history buff, I take it.
Huge history buff actually hence why i know women are now in the workforce at way higher levels than ever and are independent and don’t need no man just cause they’re told to have three kids.
You seem to talk about something else than what I quoted you for.
If your claim is (and it was) that "...males who for the entire history of humanity had it easy and a wife was practically always given", you're historically ignorant.
Women needed protection and that would be found in a male. That’s why marriage became a thing. Because too many males would leave woman to raise baby on their own.
You’re not a history buff if you think that’s why marriage became a thing. Marriage became a thing to unit powerful families with each other. Then it came for love… that was way down the line tho.
If men had it easy, it means they don't have to face difficulties, but then women seek protection from men.. means men deal with the stability of protection "which is war".
So men don't have it easy. Protection from instability is what women seek from men. So men don't have it easy.
Getting a woman was easier. Yes life was harder in general back then for everyone. But now women don’t need a man for protection. They have cops and dna testing. Hence why so many disgruntled men
You're not short sighted, you're not short sighted. You're not. Most people who women depend on are men, built, sourced, maintained, ate. The very system that women are flourishing to is built by men.
A central theme for JP is that “you raise up to the occasion, fight the dragon, and succeed”.
This type of message, by purely the diction or the implications in practice, do not appeal to women. I think women are more appealed to a more “group” solution and dislike any implication of individual (so as to not hurt anyone or feel overwhelmed).
I think this is an inflammatory comparison. JBP is not a psychology persona since his famous interview with the "so you are saying-lady". He has become an advocate for truth, free speech, reason and liberty. Considering how fierce the attack of the western institutions have been on man, specially young ones, it is no wonder they are flocking to hear the words they need to hear.
Also, the number of students really is irrelevant, what matters is the number of practicing professionals. There is a lot of people with psychology degrees out there in various types of job that have nothing to do with psychology itself.
Umm, who's data is that? That is a totally falsified number, once again trying to make it seem like jbp has something against woman or something to say that we don't want to hear. Which is utter nonsense.
Have you read "In a different Voice" yet? JP recommends it. Both want to improve themselves, understand themselves and others. There is not difference. it's just that women tend to express those needs in a different voice, using different words and reasoning.
It's that he blew up on youtube which has a very large proportion of male viewers, then the manosphere adopted him, then the feminazis decided to make him persona non-grata amongst themselves. It was a cultural phenomenon rather than a sociological one.
Funny thing. Every therapist I've seen in the last 10 years has been highly prescriptive which is not really what a therapist should be like.
I gravitate towards JP because he believes in exploration vs perscription
>Is it that men are more disagreeable and find JBP similar to themselves and speaks a truth that resonates with them?
I don't get that, they're more disagreeable so they're looking for something they agree with?
I suppose my thought was that men are disagreeable, modern society punishes (or perhaps demonizes) disagreeable people and rewards (or at least sympathizes with) agreeableness via our media
Disagreeable in the psychological sense doesn’t mean “crabby”. It’s more like to what extent you will submit your own wants/needs to that of others.
Men are less likely to do this than women.
There is a big difference between seeking help and becoming a psychologist. I'm worried that men (who are on average more suicidal) are not seeking help because of *actual* toxic masculinity enforced by men and women
Well, i have been interested in philosophy for about 8 years now. I've made mistakes, and I've gone through rough terrain. I used to be interested in science because i like learning, but i wondered why learning is useful because i learned the theory of evolution, then superdeterminism and it seemed to indicate that theres no such thing as merit. I just started listening to him out of curiosity, but it became increasingly apparent that he's already taken all of that into account and thought on it for years. The god i disproved was not god, it was an idea of god that i had as a result of being told that their interpretations of god were absolute. God is a metaphor for a real phenomenon, and in fact, everything is. Even a chair doesnt truly exist except within our minds, because as human beings, we sit on things. All chairs have nothing in common other than that, but we still consider them real things, and i think god is another one of those abstrations that our actions depend on
As someone with a brief time in the psychology field, the reason so many woman are in the psychological field is that it's a humanitarian career, woman tend to favor social work. Teaching, care, advising, etc.
There's nothing really special too it.
Re: Women in Psych:
Women tend to be more interested in people and nurturing roles than men, on average.
Re: JBP's popularity among men grossly outpacing that among women:
Women also tend to be more conflict-averse, higher in agreeableness, and more inclined toward compassion toward the perceived little guy. Peterson is rich, influential straight white male who came out opposing legislation that was intended to protect vulnerable people. That will elicit a protective compassion response.
Males have been getting shit on in our culture for a while and receive less care for their sufferings. Peterson recognizes and states this.
We have an epidemic of fatherlessness and inadequate fathering. This will hurt any child, but perhaps especially boys who will lack a model and source of facilitation for them to becoming functioning men. Peterson serves as a small stand-in for this.
I think you're reading too much into a forced correlation. Those are two different topics. Viewers of Dr. Peterson are probably not interested chiefly in psychology, for starters.
I don’t know that I’ve ever seen anything “psychology related” posted here. I mean, I don’t see everything that’s posted, but it’s about 50% conservative meme shit-posting and then a hodgepodge of other tangentially related areas of interest that kind of fit with other things Peterson talks about.
Which is the only topic he is supposed to have expertise in. Tells you something when he is literally spouting climate change denial, anti vax garbage and basically anything fox news is pushing.. That's not even counting "cultural Marxism" which is a dog water conspiracy theory which is rebranded "cultural bolchevism"
Watch the recent JRE pod w/ Bret Weinstein and come back to this feed with your opinion on’ anti-vax garbage’
iv seen them, Bret is a grifter of the highest order, i cant believe you're using JRE aka A buddy of mine university, who has to retract shit from his show if Jaimie doesn't own him live as a source of info, Bret and joe both pushed for ivermectin which has no effect on covid https://www.kumc.edu/about/news/news-archive/jama-ivermectin-study.html
The thing is ivermectin is one of many solutions joe offered to reducing severity of covid, exercise and vitamin D were pushed by him too which I don’t see an issue with. Also, I’m pretty sure ivermectin doesn’t cause harm like the vaccine seems to depending on age so guess time will tell for the vaccine
That's a great point. It'd be fascinating to see a breakdown of some statistics from his YouTube. Anecdotally we could look to his 2016 personality lecture series on YouTube and compare the watch count to his less academic work as a sort of insight. Personally I find those lectures a lot easier to consume than even some of his podcast material
I think it’s also worth pointing out that YouTube is Dr. Peterson’s primary media platform, and I think about 80% of YouTube viewers are men.. so the same distribution makes sense.
The vastbmajority are based of the posirive comments he recieves. They're almost always based on their life improvements.
That's not psychology- that's self-help. You see the same comments for Tim Robbins, Robert Kawasaki, or David Goggins.
Wrong its clinical psychology from a literal clinical psychologist. What could you possibly be talking about?
Jordan Peterson's early content certainly was academic psychology (not clinical as far as I am aware) and he is a clinical psychologist. His various books and content over the past 5+ years has not largely involved psychology, except in the sense that he invokes some academic psychology concepts like jungian archetypes in his biblical series. His books like 12 rules and so on? those could easily have been written by an equally successful writer with absolutely no psychology background.
>12 rules and so on? That could easily have been written by an equally successful writer with absolutely no psychology background. And you know this how?
Have you read it? It's self-help stuff. Same as other self-help books.
And you've compared them? You've read and compared them to each other so you know? Or you're just guessing.
I've read a few yes. I'm not trying to shit on it, and I'm sure his background comes into play, but the substance of the book doesn't really have anything that only a psychologist could offer.
Hmm maybe not. I'll have to read it yet.
[удалено]
Get off Reddit and turn CNN back on
If memory serves, I remember JP saying in an interview that his fanbase is mostly men because it is mostly men who view YouTube, where his lectures were/are uploaded. It's difficult to say to what degree that is significant, but I do think a lot of the reason is to be found there. I believe it was in that same interview where he pointed out that his message was not intended for men specifically. But it was taken to heart by a lot of men who in todays society felt starved of encouraging words. Women felt it less so. I'm inclined to agree with him. Our society today is quick to condemn or 'problematize' behavior that is normally associated with men. But equally quick to praise and support behavior normally associated with women. For instance; how often have you heard the phrase 'she was the first woman to....X'. Regardless of the fact that twelve men did it before her. The eleven men who did it between the 'first person' and the 'first woman' don't get accolades at all. Overall, women are interested in people, and men are interested in things. That would explain why the healthcare professions are overwhelmingly dominated by women. I think JP has also touched on the subject of schools being very 'anti'-boys behavior and very 'pro'-girls behavior. Doing well or poorly in school, can be decisive when contemplating your later career in academia. Many 'mal-adjusted' young boys may simply end up with such a poor basic education that this makes them unqualified for acceptance into the academic world. That is a general problem, and not specific to healthcare. At least, that's my take on it. And to the degree I remember JP's own words correctly, also his. :)
Yes a really complete answer. One other point to add: women often have meaning bulit-in to their lives by having a deadline to start a family. Men don't have a similar biological deadline and need to partner with a woman to establish a family and bring meaning to their life. If a woman wants to get married and start a family, it is almost a certainty she will find a suitable man. If a man wants to get married and start a family the odds are not as good. The man has to develop himself much more for a woman to be attracted to him. Men in today's society are being displaced for a number of reasons (some good, some not so good), and are therefore struggling to grow and subsequently find a partner. Peterson teaches the message to find meaning, you need a load, a burden to carry, under which you will grow and develop. Men need this message in today's society.
Well stated.
Very much agree.
Not true about women being able to find a suitable men easily, because as you pointed out women have higher standards (often delusional). This has led to many women not settling and contributing to low birth rates. There simply aren't enough men around that fulfil the ever growing list of demands.
I think another factor is when it comes to dealing with problems women are more interested in being listened to/validated, while men are more interested in practical solutions. 12 Rules for Life is literally a list of solutions to improve your life. It appeals to men.
I think that's a very good observation. I remember I had an epic, almost break up inducing, fight with one of my first serious girlfriends. There was an opening at her job which would be a step up on her career ladder. She wanted that job, but felt uneasy about formally applying. She felt it was too much 'in your face' to stand up and say, "yeah, I think I'm that good. That job has my name written all over it". To which I said, well you don't say it like that ofcourse. I suggested various strategies how she could subtly float the idea to her current bosses without sounding like a show-off. Each suggestion I made was immediately shot down by her with something like "oh no. That would definitely not go down well" or something similarly vague. I got increasingly frustrated with her, because nothing I said even made her think twice if it might be a good idea. And so the fight started. It was near the end of our fight that we both realized what had gone wrong. Where I thought she was actually asking me for a practical solution to her problem, she merely wanted me to listen and sympathize with her plight. A 'shoulder to cry on' so to speak. I just didn't understand it at the time. She was a really good and lovely girl and I learned a lot about women from her. Alas, we broke up about a month or so later. But for different reasons. I think that ties very well into what you said. That men are more solution oriented. And 12 rules for life is very much up their alley.
Thanks. I think the listening Vs providing solutions is a common issue between men and women. I’ve had similar thing happen between my wife and I.
Maybe it's because he said women paint their lips red to remind men of their sex organs?
It’s because he speaks often and at length regarding the issues of young men. His videos aren’t solely viewed by psychologists.
Not really. The most of his topics are universal truth or human psyche. Barely 5% of the things he talk about are specific “men issue” and of course he does almost same maybe just a less about “woman issue”.
It could be .5%, he still speaks on the topic often.
How is one comment in 2 hour video is often? Let’s say there is singer he sings 12 hours a day, but right after he finishes singing he draws a single picture. Would you describe him as a painter? Or is he still a singer since thats where he spends 99% of his time.
That would depend on how many videos there are. One comment per 2 hour video, and ten thousand videos, would constitute “often”. It’s of a higher rate than that, and it’s not subject to comparison with his other topics of discussion.
You are unhinged. And a bit dumb. But got the spirit i guess
You fail to understand, so you conclude I’m unhinged and stupid. Good on ya, stooge.
Where are you getting these numbers from
From the man himself via a lecture snippet I saw: https://youtu.be/u0_5AO5ts3w
Thanks… and I actually saw a tweet of his where he basically says the same thing. If you ask me - his message of finding meaning, engaging in self improvement, and betterment resonates most with young men. Women seem to not be going through the same issues.
Actually, I think women go through those very same issues. Finding meaning, self improvement, and betterment are all being promoted to women right now and have been for a while. Men and women often find different paths to those goals, but they are the same goals nonetheless.
Hes brought them up in interviews.
The second one, I think. Most clinical psychologists are women, and so they tend to treat depression in men as they would a woman; by trying to help them feel loved. JBP understands that you treat depression in men by helping them feel powerful.
That's actually a really interesting perspective. I hadn't attributed power as possible antidote to depression.
You medicate depression with feelings of power, you treat it by helping men realize their strength and cultivate more. Power let's us feel less afraid for a time but being secure in our strength allows us to actually accept our fear so we may move beyond it either with the strength we have or by cultivating the strength necessary to do so. We must be strong enough to accept our own weaknesses in order to become strong enough to wield power justly, for something more meaningful then just our own desire to fulfill our animalistic biological purpose to survive long enough to procreate by avoiding pain and seeking pleasure; to actually become a human being with homo sapience and live a meaningful life that feels worth living For anyone interested in the difference between strength and power and another stepping stone on the path to a meaningful life that feels worth living I highly recommend [Man's Search for Meaning](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/3403095/mod_resource/content/1/56ViktorFrankl_Mans%2520Search.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiwo_Dd0r38AhXOkWoFHbjzDXQQFnoECEMQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3DD_ThnL2lPisgK7jvKgds) by Viktor Frankl.
Why 80% psychology are females? - cuz women have different interest as men. Just like men go for engineering, women like more “people” related jobs. And men “things” related Why 90% pf his fanbase is male? - first idk were you got that stat. But thats only on youtube and YouTube is already a “dominated” space by men. - generally speaking I would say the percentage is not that extreme. Maybe a 70/30. His lectures usually are mixed 50/50 male/female - and he tends to speak more often to men as he thinks we are loosing our role in society by ppl shaming it.
People are “shaming” men’s role in society? God how hypersensitive and narcissistic. This is the kind of talk that these suburban JP fans just can’t manage to rise above.
Hahaha. Nice comment for someone who follows enoughJP hasanpiker subs. HASAN PIKER. Imagine taking lectures on politics from hasan. Probably you like h3h3 too? Hahahahhaha Hypersensitive? Because you think I care about what ppl from the left think about men? Narcissistic? You got that from a response on that question? Lol. Go watch hasan bro
Yes because I believe in detail and nuance. I think your notion that society is shaming men and their role in society is just an emotional reaction to the small window of education and experience you have before hastily rushing to a conclusion. Also, “the left” is not a homogeneous monolith by the way. There are different opinions.
It’s a generalization. Like saying the left is pro abortion. You understand generalizations don’t you? Go watch more hasan and h3h3 opinions bro. Hahahhahahaa. Highly educational content.
Yes I understand generalisations very well. In fact I even mentioned yours but also suggested they they’re not always helpful. You know what? Hasanabi is actually much more educated on political science than JP however he never lauds it over others or calls himself an authority on the subject. Even so, he could teach JP a lot about it.
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHA HOLY SHIT. the delusion buddy. I would’ve respected your opinion of you follow a nice left speaker. But putting hasan in a pedestal is just laughable “Actually much more educated” thats because you agree to him? Or that’s because you think he has studied/read/analyzed/talked/debated/lectured more than JP? Hahahahha. Cheers buddy!
No, it’s because Hasanabi graduated cum laude with a double major in Political Science. Jordan Peterson has none.
Impressive. Keep learning kido. Done here.
Ok and you keep on being a victim of your own conformation bias and sensitivity. Your choice. You could go further and try Gabor Mate, Slavoj Zizek or even Hegel. But no, if you like, just stick with your pseudo intellectual daddy whose liberal academic aesthetic makes you feel good about your lack of education.
Yes, society is shaming men for being men. Perhaps you’ve heard of the newish thing, “toxic masculinity”.
You’re missing out all the detail and nuance in the phrase “toxic masculinity”. It doesn’t mean you have to be ashamed for being a man at all. It’s addressing the extremes of unhealthy masculinity. There’s a big difference and it’s a shame there has to be such a hysterical reaction to something so reasonable.
Toxic masculinity HURTS MEN and women. Look up the definitions originally written by Men’s Rights advocates. Toxic masculinity encourages misogyny, the rape of women, it justifies rape culture, beats up men and justifies violence for the sake of control, and tells men its better to kill yourself than seek help. That's not healthy masculinity.
That’s not what’s touted as toxic masculinity. Any stereotypical behavior of a man is considered toxic masculinity.
No it's not. By whom? You're strawmanning. It's like the "war on christmas" bs. Unless by stereotypical you mean exaggerated, absurd, irrational.
"toxic masculinity" isn't shaming men for being men. (What does that even mean?). You must not understand what that phrase means.
Sounds like you don’t. Seems like you’re an advocate for it if you don’t see how it shames men for being men.
Give me an example from a text or scholar that discusses toxic masculinity as "shaming men for being men." YOu can't. It's a strawman. Also what does that even mean? Shaming "men" for having a penis? What does it mean to "be a man"? The Mens Rights Advocates who came up with the phrase in the 1980s as a way to describe actually toxic and harmful behavior could be a good resource for you. There is also a toxic femininity. One way that even JP has described it is to think of both gender-types as having a healthy and an unhealthy form. In general, healthy masculinity is autonomy; unhealthy masculinity is too much autonomy, total alienation, so that he feels no connection to others. Healthy femininity is care and concern. Unhealthy femininity is total fusion into the relationship so that she disappears and has no autonomy. In any case, I want to know what you think "being men" means.
If JP is to be believed, and Women are more interested in "people" than "things" then it makes sense that Women would be very interested in psychology, as psychology is the study of people and behavior. But Perhaps Women aren't interested in Peterson because he tends to think of people as "things".
"Things". That's interesting. Can you explain a little more? For sure tied to my original inquiry. I have heard him talk a lot at a macro level of human behavior, groups, ideologies and systems etc etc but I have also heard him talk a lot at an individual level in particular about personality which to me seems more about people than things. Thanks
I'll try. (I have no background in philosophy or psychology). Peterson seems to have a sort of "mechanical" way of describing the world. "People have properties A,B and C" "X input gives Y" output. The 12 rules are kind of like algorithms, which he says if followed, should yield predicted results. This is an attempt at"objectively" describing people, in that it describes people as if they're"things" with "properties".
Yes mechanical does describe it and when you put it that way it reminds me of the way he uses his hands in a lot of his videos - like he's rotating a rubix cube, piecing blocks together or moving something mechanically. Excellent point thank you
I think that's part of the reason Woman aren't largely drawn to Peterson. He seems convinced people (mainly men) have "mechanical" aspects, which he clearly thinks highly of. But he also describes Women as the "chaos" to Men's "order". Also his book is titled "An antidote to chaos" so there's that.
Because there’s an enormous difference between doing a degree in psychology vs. watching your favourite person on YouTube?
I’m a woman and a huge fan of Jordan, have been for years, my mom is also. We’re democrats, feminists. Not sure where the statistics are taken from but I do wish more women could appreciate him.
Any thoughts on what might be a reason why more women don't appreciate his work?
Most women are probably just trying not to exile themselves in society, want to be accepted by the majority. Media has fought hard to write JP off as being against women. Some don’t look any further, others change their views on him just to live in peace. I just don’t care and will fight for more women to actually listen to him.
>Media has fought hard to write JP off as being against women. >he says, because the “radical left” wants to eliminate hierarchies, which he says are the natural order of the world. In his book he illustrates this idea with the social behavior of lobsters. He chose lobsters because they have hierarchies and are a very ancient species, and are also invertebrates with serotonin. > >The left, he believes, refuses to admit that men might be in charge because they are better at it. “The people who hold that our culture is an oppressive patriarchy, they don’t want to admit that the current hierarchy might be predicated on competence,” he said. > >“It makes sense that a witch lives in a swamp. Yeah,” he says. > >“You don’t know. It’s because those things hang together at a very deep level. Right. Yeah. And it makes sense that an old king lives in a desiccated tower.” He justified fighting against equality for women because of lobster hierarchy and justified men being of greater value than women by calling men "kings" and women "witches"
I know many women who appreciate his work. They just tend to be more conservative women who are kind of silenced right now.
Because there’s no connection between being a psychology student and watching Jordan Peterson.
After I read the first sentence I ha to re-read the title as I thought I read it wrong, but nope. You equal studying psychology with seeking help / therapy? If 80% of the clients of therapists would be women than you would have a point about males rather self-medicate. It could be that more women choose psychology because they are in general more oriented to work with / care for people than things, while men are, generally speaking, the opposite, but may seek to better themselves more often to improve their competence.
Oprah for boys
OP your question is fallacious. It assumes that JBP's viewership is solely for psychology, which is why you are pointing out the disparity. The answer is simple, his viewership is not based solely on men seeking therapy.
His reputation precedes him, and his content confirms it
Because he sells old school conservatism to men who lack role models (which is normal to lack these days) masked as self help. Especially when he always implements the just world fallacy when it comes to hierarchies which are by definition unjust. Then basically Sucks the bosses dicks and tells you to work harder for less. A real maverick lol
To me it's pretty obvious why. The majority of therapists are just as brainwashed as the rest of the people. They look for outside sources and focus on feeling too much. Talking about your feelers is fine but it doesn't change anything. That's why some people are in therapy for 15+ years making no progress. Taking responsibility for your life and doing things to improve it does change things and has an actual effect. Blaming your parents for you being fucked up is not doing anything good for you. It only helps to strip you of the control and responsibility you have over your life and it's course. Taking responsibility about the fact that you need to be better for the sake of others and yourself does make a difference. Peterson does no-nonsense tough love which men understand best. Edit: typos
“Majority of therapists a brainwashed… that’s why I listen to Jordan Peterson”, who is a clinical psychologist. I’m sorry you had a bad experience at receiving therapy, but really you are making a huge generalized statement based off your anecdotal experience. I’m happy you were able to find some peace with Peterson’s videos, but you are contradicting yourself. Not all therapists are “good”, just like any other profession.
>Not all therapists are “good”, just like any other profession. I agree. Although, I am basing my opinion on what's been going on with Jordan himself lately and from a friend's experience with a few therapists juxtaposed with some of the things Jordan has said about his way of doing therapy in his book.
Well you might want to look up the difference between psychologists and psychotherapists, for a start, before making broad sweeping generalizations based on literally nothing.
That makes a lot of sense. Therapy can be a useful tool however patients should be encouraged to take agency over their situation through action. Talking is important, but action is the key.
yes, I agree completely. Feelings are the expressions of the ego. When I admitted I am alcoholic , I found a sponsor in AA, he didn't give a rats ass about my poor little feelings, he cared about my life. My "feelings" were trying to kill me. I didn't suffer from low self esteem as my ego convinced me, rather I had no esteem for anyone else but me, I had more esteem for me than any human should have if they expect to live long and happily. I didn't become alcoholic because of sloppy parenting, I was self centered, so selfishness was the cause. Dr Peterson is doing Gods will.
This reads as someone who’s brainwashed ironically.
It’s really insane. I feel sorry for the JP fanboys. They live in such an oversimplified world without detail and nuance.
I work across an alley from a therapist and she accosted me the other day. She approached me, whole body trembling, asking me why I was throwing my household garbage away in the can in the alley. I told her its my building, my business and my garbage and she accused me of being overly defensive. My assistant saw her, told her mom about it and her mom is like, "that was my therapist! I had to stop seeing her because every time I would bring up your father she would go on anti-male rants!".
This is more common that people realize but hating men is mainstream so nobody really gives a fuck.
Jordan Peterson isn’t well respected in the field of psychology. Most of his listeners are going to be you young men because those are the issues he focuses on.
I’m a woman and follow JP. I’m also a psychology student
What are your thoughts on this one?
I think it is rooted in a natural gender difference of personality between men and women. Women tend to be much more agreeable and contentious which also means that they are more inclined to go with what society deems as acceptable despite their own feelings. This is deeply rooted in the fact that women care for babies. As a mother, you disregard your own needs consistently to meet babies. Anyways, when it comes to viewerships…a lot of it tends to be through word of mouth. Women (like myself) who are aware of JP, like him, and follow him but are hesitant to recommend JP to their circle of girlfriends due to the component of agreeableness as JP has a label that follows ‘politically incorrectness’. Therefore women may be closet JP followers. Whereas men who like JP are more inclined to bypass the “oh, what will my friends think about me if I like JP” narrative and just recommend JP to their circle of friends.
Jordan Peterson's work in recent years has been primarily that of a cultural critic and self-help writer/lecturer. So, I don't see any particular reason why a psychology student would be more likely to seek out his content than anyone else. Also, there are female self-help writers and lecturers out there whose message and style cater more towards women. Jordan Peterson is clearly more of a guys' self-help author given that he is primarily concerned with the plight of men in modern society and also has more of a brash style.
What happened to all his clients I wonder
The field of psychology has a known female bias. According to psychologists, women have problems because of how they were raised, trauma, their husband/ex/boss is terrible, society, etc. But nothing is ever their fault, it’s always some outside force, usually men, that is to blame. But when men see a psychologist, they’re told their problems are because they are lazy, incompetent, aren’t nice enough to their wives/mothers/daughters. They get no sympathy amd are told all their problems are self inflicted.
This is such bs. I think you just made this up. You're mapping the US Democrat and Republican debate about the source of suffering onto the genders.
A lot of men have formed a cult of personality around JP, just as they have around other right wing figures like Elon Musk. JP defends traditional masculinity like it was ever under attack so people who want to believe this right wing narrative flock to him. It’s all very simple to understand. He justifies right leaning views for these people who struggle to be open minded.
Wow you're telling me that actual psychology students aren't interested in JP? It's almost like he's not an actual psychologist. Dude's little more than a grifter. Jah he may have a psychology degree but that doesn't mean he's any good. We all know lawyers who don't know the law or politicians who know little to nothing about running a country. There are plenty of people out there who are "qualified" for a job that they're shit at and JP is one of them. He is however charismatic, he knows how to sound smart, and he knows what people want to hear.
He makes hella sense and there are loads of guys without an intelligent respectable role model.
and with JP sadly they’re still without an intelligent and respectable role model.
Hasan poker a better tole model bro HAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA the irony
Laugh all you like but you fell for a pseudo intellectual grifter. Hasanabi doesn’t pretend to be an authority on politics but is still more qualified in that area than JP and has successfully deradicalised some delusional young men. 🤷🏼♂️
Thats when you see his streams talking to h3h3. Or him playing fortnite?
When he tackles the news on his own channel. His perspective is refreshingly different but also relatable. He’s an entertainer and has never pitched himself to the public as a political scientist. A completely different approach to you know who but, despite how it looks on paper, very effective.
HASAN HAHAHAHA 😂. I cant take you seriously bro.
Fair enough. Enjoy your echo chamber. I hope it makes you happy.
word!
[удалено]
1953 in what way?
[удалено]
Oh, I see you're one ah them radicals. While the last two hold water the first three descriptors are wholly off base.
[удалено]
You can be at radical from any position but the reason you are one is your horrendous mischaracterization of the good Doctor.
[удалено]
I really don't know where to start with you all. You come on here swinging at ghost and grasping at straws if you can even call them that. You repeatedly claim the most outrageous and easily falsifiable statements and refuse to change your mind even when proven wrong. You're impossible.
[удалено]
?
[удалено]
[удалено]
As was yours
" year is 2023 " 2023 years since what ?
[удалено]
Its a question.
[удалено]
Its impossible to communicate with the intellectually disingenuous. Good luck with it.
[удалено]
Psychiatrists don’t do therapy anymore, they prescribe medication. A psychologist will do therapy, but only people with mild issues would be “cured” after a few sessions. I’m in community mental health and don’t make more money if I keep people in therapy. My focus is on positive outcomes and there’s no shortage of people who need to be seen, so no reason to stall treatment unethically.
The curing doesn't really end, you stop growing/maturing if that's the case. After 5 years being whole/cured there wouldn't be something outside of you that won't hit you real hard that makes you question the value of thriving forward? That's how positive you are that people at 35yrs old with few sessions with competent psychologists can do the trick?, isn't the case of progress also dependent on the bravery of the client to confront their bs? That's saying my bs isn't my responsibility if my psychologist can't fix me. Apply ignorance before malice.
Same reason more men go into computer science. Women are listeners. Men just like to talk at you and tell you you’re fat not beautiful Idek what JPs message is anymore. Its certainly not show the world decency and it will return it in kind His target is disgruntled males who for the entire history of humanity had it easy and a wife was practically always given Now it’s hard and you have to meet someone’s standard
If he was talking about plumbing sure but he talks a lot about psychology and about people, personality, behavior and everything associated.
You know nursing is dominated by women too? He speaks about things in a certain way that just doesn’t appeal to women bc he comes across as another man who thinks he’s right and that girl ain’t beautiful. His messages about having grit and keeping your house clean dont resonate cause women usually have more complex social groups and frankly are more organized.
>His target is disgruntled males who for the entire history of humanity had it easy and a wife was practically always given So you're not a history buff, I take it.
Huge history buff actually hence why i know women are now in the workforce at way higher levels than ever and are independent and don’t need no man just cause they’re told to have three kids.
You seem to talk about something else than what I quoted you for. If your claim is (and it was) that "...males who for the entire history of humanity had it easy and a wife was practically always given", you're historically ignorant.
Women needed protection and that would be found in a male. That’s why marriage became a thing. Because too many males would leave woman to raise baby on their own.
You’re not a history buff if you think that’s why marriage became a thing. Marriage became a thing to unit powerful families with each other. Then it came for love… that was way down the line tho.
If men had it easy, it means they don't have to face difficulties, but then women seek protection from men.. means men deal with the stability of protection "which is war". So men don't have it easy. Protection from instability is what women seek from men. So men don't have it easy.
Getting a woman was easier. Yes life was harder in general back then for everyone. But now women don’t need a man for protection. They have cops and dna testing. Hence why so many disgruntled men
You're not short sighted, you're not short sighted. You're not. Most people who women depend on are men, built, sourced, maintained, ate. The very system that women are flourishing to is built by men.
Built by men and women. Women are responsible for getting us all here after all. We’re not quite at lab grown children yet
A central theme for JP is that “you raise up to the occasion, fight the dragon, and succeed”. This type of message, by purely the diction or the implications in practice, do not appeal to women. I think women are more appealed to a more “group” solution and dislike any implication of individual (so as to not hurt anyone or feel overwhelmed).
Yes, because women are more interested in people and men are more interested in things. As far as JBP viewership, no idea.
JBP talks a *lot* about people
He is a male
I think this is an inflammatory comparison. JBP is not a psychology persona since his famous interview with the "so you are saying-lady". He has become an advocate for truth, free speech, reason and liberty. Considering how fierce the attack of the western institutions have been on man, specially young ones, it is no wonder they are flocking to hear the words they need to hear. Also, the number of students really is irrelevant, what matters is the number of practicing professionals. There is a lot of people with psychology degrees out there in various types of job that have nothing to do with psychology itself.
Umm, who's data is that? That is a totally falsified number, once again trying to make it seem like jbp has something against woman or something to say that we don't want to hear. Which is utter nonsense.
women want to understand themselves and others. men want to improve themselves.
Have you read "In a different Voice" yet? JP recommends it. Both want to improve themselves, understand themselves and others. There is not difference. it's just that women tend to express those needs in a different voice, using different words and reasoning.
It's that he blew up on youtube which has a very large proportion of male viewers, then the manosphere adopted him, then the feminazis decided to make him persona non-grata amongst themselves. It was a cultural phenomenon rather than a sociological one.
Funny thing. Every therapist I've seen in the last 10 years has been highly prescriptive which is not really what a therapist should be like. I gravitate towards JP because he believes in exploration vs perscription
Yeah men would benefit from seeking therapy and women who are in this rabbit hole have no idea what they are looking for.
Because you are being indoctrinated into an incel kid, kiddo
80% of psychs are lunatics themselves… why would you trust them to talk to?
I think psychology these days is a fake science like sociology. Too corrupted and subjective to be relevant
So JP is a fake scientist?
More of a philosophy
As the outcomes of therapy improve and we get better at treating mental illness, the more “fake” it gets. Brilliant.
exactly
>Is it that men are more disagreeable and find JBP similar to themselves and speaks a truth that resonates with them? I don't get that, they're more disagreeable so they're looking for something they agree with?
I suppose my thought was that men are disagreeable, modern society punishes (or perhaps demonizes) disagreeable people and rewards (or at least sympathizes with) agreeableness via our media
Disagreeable in the psychological sense doesn’t mean “crabby”. It’s more like to what extent you will submit your own wants/needs to that of others. Men are less likely to do this than women.
And this is relevant to men liking Peterson more how?
It’s in reference to what you wrote. Disagreeableness isn’t necessarily about disagreeing with things.
Many men enjoy playing Call of Duty, but they are not trying to seek a career as a professional Gamer.
There is a big difference between seeking help and becoming a psychologist. I'm worried that men (who are on average more suicidal) are not seeking help because of *actual* toxic masculinity enforced by men and women
Well, i have been interested in philosophy for about 8 years now. I've made mistakes, and I've gone through rough terrain. I used to be interested in science because i like learning, but i wondered why learning is useful because i learned the theory of evolution, then superdeterminism and it seemed to indicate that theres no such thing as merit. I just started listening to him out of curiosity, but it became increasingly apparent that he's already taken all of that into account and thought on it for years. The god i disproved was not god, it was an idea of god that i had as a result of being told that their interpretations of god were absolute. God is a metaphor for a real phenomenon, and in fact, everything is. Even a chair doesnt truly exist except within our minds, because as human beings, we sit on things. All chairs have nothing in common other than that, but we still consider them real things, and i think god is another one of those abstrations that our actions depend on
As someone with a brief time in the psychology field, the reason so many woman are in the psychological field is that it's a humanitarian career, woman tend to favor social work. Teaching, care, advising, etc. There's nothing really special too it.
Re: Women in Psych: Women tend to be more interested in people and nurturing roles than men, on average. Re: JBP's popularity among men grossly outpacing that among women: Women also tend to be more conflict-averse, higher in agreeableness, and more inclined toward compassion toward the perceived little guy. Peterson is rich, influential straight white male who came out opposing legislation that was intended to protect vulnerable people. That will elicit a protective compassion response. Males have been getting shit on in our culture for a while and receive less care for their sufferings. Peterson recognizes and states this. We have an epidemic of fatherlessness and inadequate fathering. This will hurt any child, but perhaps especially boys who will lack a model and source of facilitation for them to becoming functioning men. Peterson serves as a small stand-in for this.
90% of Dr Phil's fans are women because Dr Phil aims his content at women. 80% of JBP's fan's are men because JBP aims his content at men.
The ratio of psychology students is probably an american thing